Backyards and gardens have become increasingly popular to display plants and flowers in pots and planters. Attempts have been made to display pots and plants that have included ground based stands and elevated supports. Many of these stands can require assembly time and be expensive to purchase and assemble, as well as be unsightly and unattractive. In addition, such stands take up valuable ground space which restricts use and enjoyment of backyards and gardens. For example, townhouses, and many new homes, have small backyards that do not allow for the display of many planters and pots. Thus, ground based stands are undesirable.
Since ground coverage can be limited in small environments it can be desirable to elevate pots and planters to gain valuable ground space with elevated supports. However, elevating pots and planters has required one to use hooks and other fasteners, such as tight bands and wires and chains (rust, etc.), that can have inherent problems. For example, fastening the hooks to structures such as porches, and the like, as well as to fences and even trees, requires labor and extra materials such as but not limited to hooks, and other fasteners, that must be carefully mounted.
In addition, such fasteners, that use nails and screws, and/or tight bands, wires, etc., can also cause permanent damage to those supports when they are being attached. While it may be possible to fix underlying supports such as porch columns and fences, natural supports such as trees, are generally not replaceable and can become permanently scarred and damaged. Often these hook and band type fasteners form permanent attachments to underlying structures and can not be reusable.
Additionally, many stands can require extensive material cost and time to assemble, and also can result in unsightly and unattractive supports that are not desirable for displaying pots and planters of flowers and plants.
Various types of supports have been proposed over the years, some of which are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos.: 493,161 to Grau; 3,159,413 to Silverman; 5,292,014 to Lelong; 5,295,081 to Vollink; 5,394,647 to Blackford, Jr.; 6,247,268 to Auer; 6,269,589 to Bouler; 6,681,520 to Kleinert; 6,752,279 to Dwyer; and Des. 210,302 to Lansford; and U.S. Published Patent Applications: 2004/0006913 to Jordan and 2005/0005512 to Boxsell. However, these supports are no better than those previously mentioned and do not overcome all the problems with the prior art.
Thus, the need exists for solutions to the above problems with the prior art.